Tribunals and CommissionsSingle Bench(2017) 01 NGT CK 0001

M/S. Manali Carton Industries vs M/S. Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board And Ors

National Green Tribunal · Decided on 6 January 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
M.S. Nambiar, J
RESULT
Disposed Off
CASE NUMBER
Appeal No. 2 Of 2017

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 386 words

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Learned counsel appearing for the State Pollution Control Board takes notice for respondent Nos.1 & 2.

The appeal is filed challenging the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board dated 16.12.2016 where under the appellant unit was directed to be closed under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. On the same day, another order was passed under Section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 directing closure. As that order is to be challenged before the Appellate Authority, appellant, admittedly, filed an appeal and it is pending before the Appellate Authority.

The case of the appellant is that no "consent" under Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 or Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 is necessary. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that in any case, the appellant has already submitted applications for "Consent" under the Water Act as well as Air Act and the respondents be directed to dispose the applications.

The appellant, admittedly, has not obtained the "consent" under either of the Acts. Though appellant has a case that he is not using water for the manufacture/preparation of cartons, the memorandum of appeal is silent on the process being adopted by the Unit. At the same time, even in the reply to the show cause notice issued by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, appellant has expressed the willingness to take the "consent" from the Pollution Control Board. The appellant has subsequently applied for "consent" before the Pollution Control Board under both the Acts.

The learned counsel appearing for the Pollution Control Board also admits this fact.

In such circumstances, we find no reason to set aside the order as sought for by the appellant. Suffice to direct the Board to dispose of the application for "consent" expeditiously as possible at any rate, within a period of 30 days from today.

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of as follows:

The respondents are directed to dispose of the applications submitted online by the appellant for consent under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 or Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 expeditiously at any rate within one month from today. Parties to bear their cost.